John Halton wrote:
"PAY ME $25,000 AND I'LL LET YOU DOWNLOAD THE SOURCE FROM A
PASSWORD-PROTECTED AREA OF THIS SITE".
just as easily be read as meaning "our headquarters in northern
Scotland".
Would this corrected clause then be DFSG-compliant? Added text marked
with carets.
When you mak
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 09:01:48PM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> This is where the concept of moral rights comes from. US copyright
> law doesn't recognize moral rights (except for some limited cases
> like sculptures) but European author's rights are strong on
> moral rights.
>
> Regardless
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:11:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
> > One problem with the HPL is that it is a modification of the GPL,
> > which is prohibited by the GPL itself.
>
> This is not really the case.
> As long as you change the lice
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 10 November 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Oliver Vivell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Please stop spreading your superficial knowledge about legal things.
> > > You've proven, that you are far away to have the legal expertise to
> > >
On Saturday 10 November 2007, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Oliver Vivell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please stop spreading your superficial knowledge about legal things.
> > You've proven, that you are far away to have the legal expertise to
> > judge whether all other opinions beside yours are wro
Oliver Vivell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please stop spreading your superficial knowledge about legal things.
> You've proven, that you are far away to have the legal expertise to
> judge whether all other opinions beside yours are wrong.
It is bad to see that nobody who recently answered to
Oliver Vivell wrote:
> And if you use terms, please translate them into english, that everybody
> understands them, so don't use "Urheberrecht" but the english term
> "Intellectual property rights".
_Urheberrecht_ is the German word for copyright, but it is more
accurately translated as "author'
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 21:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
there is a problem in wodim.
The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that
harm the reputation of the Author.
On Saturday 10 November 2007 08:48:22 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> My question is whether anyone among X, Y and Z in any of the below two
> situations is guilty of copyright infringement as a result of not
> following license conditions?
>
> SITUATION #1:
>
> 1. X creates 01-noqt-nothirdvar.cpp and d
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 16:05:53 + John Halton wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> > So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
> > being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
> > Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler:
>> I think that the resulting library /usr/lib/libtasn1.so.3 does not
>> inherit the licenses of the build-system, and ends up as LGPLv2.1+
>> both in 0.3.x and 1.x. Can you confirm this?
> You should ask the GNUTLS folks. I'm sure t
Brett Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:51:21PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > > > So make sure that "wodim" prints something like:
> > > >
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 04:51:21PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > > So make sure that "wodim" prints something like:
> > >
> > > "This program is known to have bugs that are
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > So make sure that "wodim" prints something like:
> >
> > "This program is known to have bugs that are not present in the original
> > software"
> >
> > and it mets the rules.
>
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 05:58:52AM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> So I can't recommend the AGPL to the hesitating project without
> being sure it's DFSG-free (since I want their work to be included in
> Debian and Ubuntu ultimately).
I suspect it'll be necessary to wait for the final version of
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:57 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There is nothing like that in the GPL. It only forbids misrepresentation
> > > of the Author's work.
> >
> > You seem to missinte
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > A GPL "work" that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL
> > library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers.
>
> Of course. But the *co
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > > > The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL
> > > > code.
> > >
> > > No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it
> > > "exp
Hello. Please inform me kindly if this Q is OT for this list.
I have a question. I will illustrate it by means of a highly simple
programming situation.
Please look at the following images (each is only 6 KB) to get a
syntax-highlighted program.
http://h1.ripway.com/jamadagni/01-noqt-nothir
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 16:39 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> So make sure that "wodim" prints something like:
>
> "This program is known to have bugs that are not present in the original
> software"
>
> and it mets the rules.
Sorry, but we are not allowed to display false statements li
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:23:51PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> See:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/121734
>
> This does not seem to have been fixed in Debian, judging by the orig.tar.gz
> shown as got from upstream at:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/ice
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 12:32:08AM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> the first is that packages in main should not have any dependencies
> on non-free software. however, debian policy is not entirely clear
> on the issue. section 2.2.1 says "... the packages in main must not
> require a package outsi
On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 07:23:51PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Apologies if this is the wrong place to report this. I'm reporting this
> here only because I thought this is also the place to bring to notice legal
> problems in Debian. Should I file a Debian bug?
Have you checked the conten
See:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/121734
This does not seem to have been fixed in Debian, judging by the
orig.tar.gz shown as got from upstream at:
http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/iceweasel
which is 42 MB as against Ubuntu's 34 MB seen at:
http://packages.ubu
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 21:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > there is a problem in wodim.
> >
> > The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that
> > harm the reputation of the Author.
>
> There is nothing
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:57 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is nothing like that in the GPL. It only forbids misrepresentation
> > of the Author's work.
>
> You seem to missinterpret the GPL.
> If the software is modified by someone
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of "the work":
> >
> > - You do not need to put "non-derived" code under the GPL.
>
> You are basing all of your r
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:15 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > "John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
> > > GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distri
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> A GPL "work" that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL
> library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers.
Of course. But the *combined work* that is constituted by the CDDL
library a
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims
> > in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between
> > "the work" and "the who
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license.
> > Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations.
> > Don't believe people who do not discu
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > > The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code.
> >
> > No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it
> > "explicitly" allows it.
>
> Well, _I_ did already explain why this
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:15:17 +0530 Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Francesco Poli wrote:
> >> Looking at the explanation: neutralising EUCD/DMCA-type laws is
> >> good, but using GPLv3 comes with the cost of endorsing things like
> >> the Affero GPL.
> >
> > ... and despite its length, it does not eve
33 matches
Mail list logo
